The Energy Research Partnership (ERP) has brought together a range of stakeholders from across the energy sector to develop a common view on the future resilience of the UK Electricity System.
The work has identified a range of emerging trends that are changing the way we operate the electricity system and will need to be acted upon to assure we have a resilient electricity system in the future. In response to these trends a number of recommendations have been made that require action over the next decade to assure resilience of the electricity system in the future.
The ERP believes is important to recognise that there may be low regret decisions and investments that we can make in anticipation of these future trends, with an overall lower cost and greater system wide benefit than if we respond to them as they arise. A key enabler to making these decisions will be achieving cross industry agreement on what we mean by resilience and how we measure it. In producing the report, the ERP has already started this process, and brought together a wide range of industry and government players to enter this debate.
Looking forward, much more needs to be done. The industry needs to engage with society and business to clearly establish their needs and expectations and how they can be met. This in turn should help shape and inform government and policy, with a new resilience taskforce working across the energy sector to help lead the changes. In particular, resilience needs to be ‘baked in’ to the regulatory regime, to ensure that together, all players can reduce the impact of any threat to network infrastructure, either proactively through design or by being ready to respond quickly to restore energy supplies. The report highlights the need to continue work with government agencies to assess cyber security risks and put in place the necessary protection to counter any potential threat.
Above all, the ERP anticipates that by assuring we have a resilient energy system in the future, whatever threats may try to compromise its operation, we will continue to make the UK an attractive place to build the global businesses of the 21st century.
Resilience Event
The ERP will be holding a Resilience Event in January at the Energy Systems Catapult in Birmingham where the report and its findings will be presented and discussed by key Working Group Members. If you would like to attend this event, please register in advance at: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/erp-future-resilience-of-the-uk-electricity-system-tickets-52904543915
Project Scope
The project scope was developed with support from Working Group Members (ERP members and project advisors). This report is based on information provided by each Working Group Member where they set out their organisation’s view on the UK electricity system resilience and the potential future impact of the changing energy landscape. All working group members discussed and shared findings at a workshop held at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in June 2018. The industry views from the responses submitted, and the workshop are represented in this report.
Resilience Working Group
ERP Members
ABB
Arup
Atkins, member of SNC-Lavalin Group
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
EDF Energy
Environment Agency
Energy Systems Catapult
National Grid Electricity Transmission
National Infrastructure Commission
Welsh Government
Project Advisors
Energy Networks Association
Electricity North West Ltd
Northern Power Grid
Scottish Power Energy Networks
UK Power Networks
Scottish and Southern Electricity
University of Manchester
Meeting the 2050 targets means the UK energy system will need to transition to low-carbon heat. Changes will be needed to how we heat our homes, buildings and industry. Supplying natural gas or oil directly into homes will need to be replaced by a decarbonised gas or by electric heating or heat network.
But it is not a simple choice: each option has challenges that could limit their deployment. A combination of options is likely to be required; no one option may not dominate, as natural gas currently does. Demand reduction will be an essential part of a cost-effective transition.
The scale of the challenge should not be underestimated. The social aspects are as challenging as the technical. The capital investment means the cost of heating will rise during the transition.
Timing is crucial. Preparations need to begin now, to inform the long investment cycles over the next 30 years.
Several low-carbon heating options need to be pursued in parallel now. Early in 2020s, critical actions and decisions will need to be taken, by Government, to avoid closing-off options, undermining their potential, or increasing their costs.
- Determining the extent to which hydrogen could be used to decarbonise the gas system, is critical. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) will be essential.
- Government support for trials of key technologies is needed now.
- No and low-regrets options should be supported now.
- High efficiency standards for new-buildings need to be set and enforced.
- A robust retrofit energy efficiency programme for existing buildings.
Addressing the social aspects of the transition needs to be a priority and requires early engagement with the public, alongside the development and coordination of financial policies, incentives, regulations and business models.
- Engagement with the public will be crucial and needs to start now.
- A new narrative for heating and hot water, to recognise that costs will increase.
- Energy efficiency should be pursued to reduce the costs.
- Decide how to address the distributional impacts.
- Prioritise new financing mechanisms and market structures.
A long-term strategy to manage the transition, which engages with the public and coordinates the diverse range of parties, with a clear decision-making framework.
- Integrate decisions on heat with transport, industry and power generation.
- A heat delivery body to facilitate national, local and commercial decision making.
- Early engagement with the public will be crucial – as will a clear narrative
Project Events
The project’s report was launched at an event in October 2017. For more information, please contact Richard Heap.
A workshop on 18 July 2017 tested the analysis on the deployment potential and challenges of the various low-carbon heating options. Details of the workshop can be found here.
January 2017 ERP convened an industry workshop to explore the challenges of deploying heat pumps (see project outputs for a note of the meeting).
The low-carbon heat project was launched in October 2016 (more information is available on the event page).
Steering Group
- Carl Arntzen, Bosch Thermotechology (Steering Group Chair)
- Chris Jofeh, ARUP
- Steven Cowan, Atkins
- Olivia Absalom & Andy Davey, BEIS (observer)
- Joe Cosier & Simon Messenger, Energy Saving Trust
- Jeff Douglas, Energy Systems Catapult
- Sarah Deasley, Frontier Economics
- Mark Thompson, Innovate UK
- Janet Mather, National Grid, Gas SO
- Rufus Ford, SSE (seconded to BEIS)
- Kathleen Robertson, Scottish Government
- Keith MacLean, Independent / UKERC
- Ron Loveland, Welsh Government
- Amber Sharick, UKERC
Additional Sponsors
We would like to thank the following organisations for providing additional funding that allowed the project to run to completion. They also provided additional technical input and advice.
Bosch
Energy Saving Trust
Innovate UK
Cadent
Energy & Utilities Alliance EUA
BEIS
SGN
Institution of Gas Engineers & Managers IGEM
Background
Since the work undertaken by the ERP on Energy Innovation Milestones in 2010 there have been radical changes in the international energy sector including but not limited to:
- the impact of fracking on US Energy Security and its potential role on global gas markets in the coming decades;
- the disruptive impact of falling costs of decentralised energy systems which in turn is questioning the longevity of the centralised utility business model around which many of the decarbonisation agendas have been orientated;
- the participation of information technology organisations into the energy sector potentially facilitating smart systems and demand side response; and
- the interdependency of economically critical infrastructure – especially energy based ones – on the resilience of nation states in the face of extreme events.
Show more
In the UK, energy policy space the gap between mega top down design and micro bottom up initiatives – particularly the space covered by municipal authorities – has become more evident. This has highlighted the omission of the impact of non-incremental and social equity issues in UK energy policy design. There has also been a substantial increase in the business models and actors who have until only recently played a passive or marginal role in energy system change. The implementation of an increasingly broad suite of low carbon policy and energy systems research has also allowed a better idea to be developed as to the implications of attempting to transform the UK energy system in such a tight timescale in a liberalised and regulated energy market.
Many of the present suite of policies and research are, however, based on a set of mega trends and uncertainties established in scenarios developed some time ago. There is a need to integrate the most recent developments into the work of ERP, those of the members and the broader energy space.
The project aim is to: identify what the main uncertainties that will impact international and UK energy sector development which might need to be considered over a number of timeframes.
Project Outputs
The project will deliver the following:
- A living document will be developed on an ongoing basis on a shared site as the project develops;
- Changes Slide Decks and Summary paper for assessments undertaken of different sectors of the energy system;
- Scenarios from key issues picked up in the horizon scanning component of the project will be produced;
- Energy, Policy and Financial Modelling based on one of the scenarios will potentially be produced by The Grantham Institute, UKERC and the Carbon Tracker Initiative, respectively; and
- Overarching Final Report in the format of the ERP Energy Innovation Milestones Report with accompanying slide deck targeted at policy makers and industry.The ERP Energy Innovation Milestones work might be turned into a Grantham Briefing Note to appeal to a broader policy audience.
Conclusions & Recommendations
TBA
Follow-up activities & Impact
The work is to be synchronised with the Committee on Climate Change’s 5th Carbon Budget (2028 – 2032) recommendation for December 2015 and the Carbon Plan that will be developed in government to meet the carbon budget in Q1 and 2 in 2016.
Steering Group
Project Chair: Professor Jim Watson – Research Director UKERC
Steering Group:
- Dr Jeff Hardy – Ofgem
- Dr Geoff Darch – Atkins
- Jim Maltby – DSTL
- Alyssa Gilbert – Grantham Institute
Steering Group Advisor:
- Dr Wendy Schultz – Infinite Futures
Further information
Please contact ERP.
Interconnected World
Background
Development of energy technologies that can significantly reduce global carbon emissions will require an international effort. Initiatives from the EU, IEA and G8 demand that the UK take a strategic approach in involvement in international activities, which should include public and private sectors.
Aims
For each technology area there are 3 categories of international engagement beneficial to the UK:
1) The UK leads and there is an export opportunity
2) The UK is on a par and needs to work with peers to develop a technology
3) The UK is behind but requires the technology
The primary aim of this work is to provide guidance for high-level visits to other countries, so that the agendas pursued and agreements signed are in the UK’s interests according to the category of engagement sought. Output will therefore be in the form of a living document. It will contain guidelines specific to technologies and potential partner countries, useful to anyone involved in international activity anywhere along the innovation chain. Initially the ERP will be an appropriate and neutral home for this.
Secondly the aim is to provide guidance to technology experts on the location of the main hotspots for key low carbon technologies.
Connections with other work
The Technology Innovation Needs Assesments (TINAs)s, commissioned by the Low Carbon Innovation Co-odrination Group (LCICG), are forming a good starting point to this work, although not all areas are covered. DECC are carrying out some work in this area and Innovate UK (Brussels Office) have made some assessments also. These works will be key to ensuring there’s no repetition of effort.
Steering Group
Currently Innovate UK, Welsh Government & DECC, but further input is sought, especially from ERP’s Industrial Members.
Background
Existing works on low carbon pathways and policies have focused on ‘the energy trilemma’: cost of energy, security of supply and carbon emissions, often with a significant emphasis on cost effectiveness. In particular, importance has been placed on achieving the lowest costs in the short-term, with decreasing costs in the long-term.
An area that has been relatively neglected within the development of pathways and scenarios (and related models) is the value and impact of pathways on economic growth (measured in GDP/GVA) and analysis of other socio-economic effects, including at regional levels. Reasons for this relate to current modelling interests and capabilities, and a lack of existing ‘top-down’ or ‘spatial’ models utilised within the UK.
It is well known and accepted that economic and socio-economic impacts can be intangible and complex to measure and define, but there are some existing UK models that can and do assess them.
ERP’s paper addresses the issue of how the UK currently considers and assesses economic impacts and benefits within five of the UK’s major pathway and scenario works. It additionally considers modelling capabilities (now and in future) and highlights other relevant models or works that can assist with analysis in this area. Works assessed within the paper are: 1) CCC’s 4th Carbon Budget Review, 2) DECC’s 2050 Pathways/Calculator & Analysis (with some extra consideration of the Dynamic Dispatch (DDM) model), 3) ETI’s ESME model, 4) National Grid’s Future Energy Scenarios (RESOM model) and 5) the MARKAL ELASTIC DEMAND model used to inform two of UKERC’s Energy 2050 scenario works. The work additionally considers the MARKAL-MACRO and Cambridge Econometrics’ MDM-E3 models.
The paper concludes by making recommendations for how further analysis of economic and socio-economic impacts can be carried out – by utilising appropriate modelling capabilities (existing and new), to help inform policy from both a top-down and bottom-up perspective of the energy system.
Show more
This project:
- Provides a broad overview of how the UK currently considers and assesses economic impacts and benefits within some of its major pathway and scenario works.
- Checks for consistency in the use of these approaches across relevant scenarios and reports.
- Considers modelling capabilities (now and in future) for making these assessments and highlights other relevant models and works that can assist with analysis in this area.
- Provides a summary of key findings and recommendations for potential future work to be taken forward by other organisations/departments.
Key Messages
- Assessments of economic growth and job creation within low carbon pathways have been relatively neglected, although it is accepted that these are complex to measure and define. Current modelling types and approaches tend to focus on 1) cost-optimisation and 2) achieving the carbon targets. There is also a lack of clarity regarding input assumptions used.
- Many works are not designed to make these assessments (it is not within their remit) and incorporating this type of analysis within the models assessed is seen as unfeasible. Impacts on a regional level within the UK (Scotland, England, Wales etc.) are complex to capture and are therefore rarely assessed.
- The type and limited number of macro-economic ‘top-down’ energy models being utilised currently constrains the range and reliability of assessments informing policy. Although these models exist (e.g. the Cambridge Econometrics’ MDM-E3), many are not set up to assess the economic value of low carbon pathways and the range of economic and socio-economic impacts of interest to policy-makers.
- There is a level of uncertainty regarding current and future modelling capabilities (models are designed for a specific purpose and are not always adapted) and a range of opinions as to whether these assessments should be included within pathway and scenario works.
Recommendations
This study has looked at a variety of models and criteria used to make judgements about future low carbon pathways and potential benefits to the UK. It is clear that further work is required to better understand the full range of models available in government, industry and academia to support this assessment, their limitations and how they interact with whole economy models. Recommendations therefore include:
- Further investigation is required to consider how and whether models can be used for more in depth socioeconomic assessments;
- The integration of existing model types should be considered, to enable more socioeconomic analysis and inform policy at a more strategic level.
- Clear communication and transparency regarding the design, premise and limitations of modelling works should be encouraged to avoid the risks of misinforming policy e.g. the effect of economic input assumptions on results obtained.
- Continued and more detailed work to assess the impacts and benefits of specific technologies for GDP, job creation and investment opportunities is encouraged, including at regional levels.
- Analysis of economic growth and job creation should be included as part of, or alongside pathway and scenario works wherever possible. This may involve an additional element of secondary analysis.
- Greater funding support is required for the development of these model types – to improve the quality of outputs and understanding of their potential.
A full list of recommendations and associated ‘Next Steps’ can be found in the Summary Paper and Final Report.
Steering Group
- Chris Pook (BIS) – Steering Group Chair
- Tom Delay (The Carbon Trust)
- Rob Saunders (TSB)
- Will Lecky/Adam Harmon (DECC)
- Emma Edworthy (Welsh Government)
- James Bolton / Aftab Malik (BIS)
- Kenny Richmond (Scottish Enterprise)
- Eric Ling (CCC)
Background
Over the next 40 years, analysis suggests that investment in energy innovation could reduce the cost of meeting the UK’s low carbon energy goals by £600 bn. These savings would reduce the upward trend in energy costs across the economy making the UK more competitive. Furthermore, energy technology development could result in UK business opportunities totalling at least £18 bn to 99 bn to 2050.
Show more
However, recent surveys have identified that some UK executives, particularly those in the manufacturing sector, are concerned about the availability of metal mineral resource inputs and the economic impact that it may have on UK competitiveness – potentially jeopardising energy goals and green growth opportunities. The Energy Research Partnership (ERP) has undertaken a review of mineral resources in order to assess whether resource availability will represent a significant risk for UK energy innovation and system development to 2050; it was undertaken with UKERC’s work on Minerals Availability. The review has highlighted the following key issues regarding the availability of metal minerals:
- Resources concerns are not a new phenomenon. Recent concerns have been stoked by the rapid rate of growth of emerging economies and ecological impacts of resource consumption.
- Energy systems are increasingly dependent on metal minerals as a result of the proliferation in the use of exotic elements and the increased mineral intensity of new energy technologies; many are essential in the development of the low carbon energy system to 2050. Consideration of primary supply of minerals is important in the near term, not only because of the expansion of energy systems but also because the long lifetime of assets means that minerals are `locked-in’, unavailable for recycling for many years. Recovery and recycling, however, are likely to be critical and should be taken into account in current decisions.
Project
This project was given the go-ahead at ERP’s April 2012 Plenary meeting. A Steering Group initiation meeting took place in mid-2012 with a view to producing preliminary findings and a final report (a joint ERP-UKERC publication) in late 2014.
The report has now been released with a summary policy paper and a full policy paper available to view.
Conclusions and recommendations
The key messages from the review are:
- The most potentially significant metal minerals constraint risk to UK energy innovation and system development to 2050 may be posed by the volatility in price and potential disruptions to the availability of `technology metal minerals’ used in both conventional energy generation and low carbon technologies. Supply uncertainty is the key concern. The availability of technology metal minerals at reasonable economic costs is essential to facilitate the rapid commercialisation of the low carbon energy system.
- Although there is no absolute shortage of any metal mineral resources, absolute availability is not a meaningful guide to prospective future production and availability, because of the impacts of economics and geopolitics. The key constraints are related to the volatility of price and potential supply disruptions. The uncertain abilities of ecological sinks to assimilate anthropogenic generated waste from the exploitation and processing of metal minerals are likely to present further challenges.
- Resource risk assessments require a system based perspective, especially of supply and demand side issues in order to account for market dynamics and ensure the development of appropriate policy responses. There is a concern that some metal mineral assessment tools are likely to lead to inadequate and miss-directed policy responses.
- The impact of metal minerals non-availability on the UK economy has yet to be quantified, and is likely to be similar to other mineral consuming nations. However, the UK’s response to the issue has tended to be non-interventionist. This is in contrast to proactive initiatives that other governments are taking, particularly in the securing of upstream supply and funding research into developing secondary sources. In the long run, the UK is therefore likely to be at a comparative disadvantage and should markets remain tight, the ability to develop a high value manufacturing sector could be jeopardized and the value creation opportunities of implementing mineral security measures will be missed e.g. material efficiency through better design, reuse and recycling technology development.
With these in mind, the ERP makes the following recommendations to ensure the UK has a globally competitive energy innovation sector:
- The location of responsibility for the monitoring of metals mineral non-availability risk and opportunities should be better defined in government.
- Resources risk assessments require a more holistic perspective of supply and demand side issues, on a mineral by mineral basis, in order to account for market dynamics and ensure the development of appropriate policy.
- Market transparency and the needs of upstream supply actors should be a priority. Transparency measures include the development of awareness of minerals use in energy technologies, impacts of minerals policies enacted by supplier nations, improved datasets and more open pricing mechanisms should be encouraged when there is sufficient liquidity. Primary supply initiatives include increasing the availability of risk capital for Junior miners exploration operations in unstable regions and encouraging investment and R&D in refining capacity.
- Investment into recycling, materials efficiency and substitution research initiatives should be improved and co-ordinated with the UK manufacturing and design sector – with immediate attention on design for recovery and recycling. Awareness of the impacts of the interaction of these policies needs to be researched.
Follow-up activities
TBA
Working Group
Project Chair: Martin Grant – Atkins
Project Steering Group:
- Richard Neale -Atkins
- Ian Glover -National Grid
- Simon Cox -Defra
- Rebecca Heaton -Shell International
- Duncan McLaren – Friends of the Earth
- Cameron Rennie – BP
- John Miles – Arup
- Chris Franklin – Research Councils (NERC)
- Jocelyn Bleriot – Ellen MacArthur Foundation
- Simon Schillebeeckx- Imperial Business School
The International Emissions Abatement Project sought to assess the UK’s carbon abatement trajectory relative to those of Germany, Japan, US, China and India. The work analysed contextual energy related issues within a consistent framework of analysis, emission abatement trajectories and implementation strategies of these nations relative to modelled generation mixes to 2020.
From this, assessment of opportunities that other nations emissions trajectories may present to the UK from a technology transfer, collaboration and business value creation perspective have been made.
Background
In the ERP-DECC meeting of 30th November 2010, Greg Barker raised the concern that there was a perception the UK was lagging other countries in its ability to implement carbon abatement applications and technologies. Specifically, that the UK was focused on capital intensive supply side solutions whilst other countries, for example Germany, were addressing demand side issues negating the need for large scale capital expenditure. This resulted in the development of the International Emissions Abatement Opportunities project.
Show more
Key Insights
Key insights of the review include:
Abatement Trajectories for Respective Nations.
- All the nations in this review, with the possible exception of the US, will become increasingly energy insecure to 2020 and 2050. The deployment of renewable and nuclear power is seen as a way of addressing energy security concerns as well as fulfilling respective environmental agendas.
- The UK is pursuing similar abatement programmes to the other countries in this survey – switching from coal to gas, maintaining nuclear (except in Germany) and with regards to renewables generation, predominantly deploying wind, biomass and solar technologies.
- All nations both in the OECD and rapidly emerging economies have energy efficiency and demand side management (DSM) programmes to reduce capital build requirements although these vary widely in scale, potential and ambition.
Capital Intensity of UK Power Generation Capacity Development to 2020.
- Despite the energy efficiency and DSM programmes, all nations have highly capital intensive generation build programmes. In terms of net capacity build to 2020, as a function of present capacity, the UK’s projected increase (17%) is on a par with the US (12%) and Japan (10%) and substantially less than Germany (26%), China (91%) and India’s (123%) – though in absolute terms China’s addition of 840 GW is the largest outlay of generation capacity.
- In terms of value capture opportunities based on the deployment activity, the UK needs to consider how best to establish energy research and industrial policy frameworks to help grow, and capture value within international (low carbon) industrial value chains where the competitive advantage for process innovation will almost certainly lie in Asia.
Collaborative Opportunities based on National Deployment Rates and Patterns.
- Different opportunities will arise in different phases of abatement technology development, necessitating different types of collaboration. Based on national deployment agendas (TRL 9), this work has identified, at a high level, indicative areas that the UK would be in a position to collaborate and the type of collaboration, on a sectoral basis within this group of countries – this is detailed in section 4 of the report.
Follow-up activities
The review has fed into the following areas of government engagement:
- A policy note to government. A policy briefing summarising this work was sent to Greg Barker on 20th July 2011.
- Feeding into the Global Strategic Trends 5 (2014) publication on Energy Technology Development to 2045. The Futures Team, Development Concepts and Doctrine Centre, MOD Shrivenham requested input to sections on energy and transport technology for the Global Strategic Trends 5 publication based on the material in this review. The Global Strategic Trends 5 publication maps global macro-drivers upon which the MoD and other government departments base their strategic planning; the next publication makes forecasts to 2045.
- Feeding into the ERP International Engagement Project. The ERP International Engagement project seeks to improve the resolution of the collaborative component of this work by matching up UK capability to develop technologies, the relevance of the technologies to energy systems and the potential for business to exploit the technology to provide a comprehensive assessment of areas where the UK should engage with other nations for business value creation, technology transfer and/or collaboration. Material from this review will assist in that work.
Working Group
- Project Chair: Tom Delay – The Carbon Trust
- Richard Neale – Atkins
- Duncan McLaren – Friends of the Earth
Further information
IEA Energy Technology Perspectives
Grantham Institute for Climate Change
UNEP: The GAP Report
It is clear that the public have a significant role in determining how the transformation of the energy system progresses. While largely supportive of a sustainable energy system the public’s trust in energy companies and government to deliver it is currently low. Published in May 2014, ERP’s ‘Engaging the Public in the Transformation of the Energy System’ report looks at how to restore this trust, which is vital if the public is to be expected to engage in the transformation, both in terms of informing decision making and undertaking changes at an individual level.
Background
For the UK to meet its mid- and long-term policy targets of a secure, low-carbon and affordable energy system a considerable transformation will be needed, requiring new technologies to be deployed along with changes to the way energy is used, distributed and generated. Spanning several decades there are still considerable uncertainties about how this will develop. It is clear that the public will interact with these changes at several levels: whether in deployment of new infrastructure or technologies in the home, or changes in behaviour. Involving the public is therefore essential, but understanding how and why is vital to ensure the transformation to a sustainable energy system is acceptable and successful.
Conclusions & Recommendations
The report explores the strategic importance of engaging with the public and the need for those involved in commissioning it, including in government and the private sector, to use it to improve decision making in the delivery of the energy transition. The value of understanding the publics’ point of view through good, early engagement is emphasised and a structure for engagement is set out with some key principles to improve the outcomes.
The work recommends developing a Strategic Narrative that can put into context the various programmes necessary for delivering the energy transition. Developed through early engagement with the public and stakeholders involved in the transition, this Strategic Narrative would help build trust and understanding of the long-term objectives and in those parties involved in delivering them and would also increase the amount and quality of engagement.
Follow-up activities
Narratives are recognised as being effective communication tools particularly for complex issues. For an issue that is as broad, complex and multi-faceted as the transformation of the energy system a high-level narrative is needed to provide a come shared purpose and demonstrate coherence to the various activities and policies needed to achieve it. Engaging the public is vital to help identify the key components of the Strategic Narrative.
ERP held a workshop in July 2014 to develop the process for developing a Strategic Narrative, with the help of Dialogue by Design and Involve. We are looking at holding a further workshop to explore the issue further in 2015.
Steering Group
The report was prepared by the ERP Analysis Team, led by Richard Heap.
ERP initiated this project recognising the importance of engaging with the public in the transition to a sustainable energy system. The work has been informed by a series of interviews and a workshop that brought together representatives from academia, industry, NGOs and the public sector. This workshop helped identify areas that are important for effective public engagement. Details can be found on the link above.
- Steering Group Chair: Ron Loveland (Welsh Government)
- John Loughhead (UKERC)
- Duncan McLaren (Friends of the Earth)
- Peter Snowdon (Shell International)
- Meryl Hicks (BP)(to Feb 2014)
- Janine Freeman (National Grid) (from Jan 2014)
- Adam Cooper (formerly DECC) (until Sept 2013)
- Ewan Bennie (DECC) (from Jan 2014)
Further Information
Please contact Richard Heap from the ERP Analysis Team.
The increasing significance of the legally binding 80% CO2 emissions reduction has led most major organisations in the public and private sectors to take a view on how the energy system will evolve to 2050. Scenarios have been developed using a range of techniques; some forecasting likely developments given the current technological, geopolitical, commercial and social environment. Others are ‘backcasting’ from an idealised low carbon system to devise trajectories that achieve an optimal outcome. Some are built from quantitative modelling techniques using optimisation or macroeconomic approaches to building feasible scenarios; others have a descriptive or consultative approach to building a qualitative perspective on the future possibilities.
ERP’s report Energy Innovation Milestones to 2050 built on an analysis of public and private sector scenarios for the UK’s energy system, bringing out some of the common themes and areas of uncertainty. The individual scenarios are described below, followed by an overview of the key messages form the meta-analysis.
Scenarios
ERP’s analyses of the scenarios that were studied for the ‘Milestones’ report are available from the links below. Each document summarises the objectives, assumptions, outputs and key messages of the scenario, with links to the full report or documentation where available.
New or updated scenarios will be added as they become available. We welcome any comments or corrections.
Meta-analysis
The meta-analysis is described in Chapter 2 of the Milestones report (available separately here link). It identifies areas of consensus and diversity across scenarios and models, also highlighting some of the critical decision or divergence points in the timeline to 2050.
The main conclusions are summarised below, against:
- demand reduction and efficiency,
- power generation, flexibility and control,
- heat supply and
- transport.
As new scenarios become available, the conclusions will be reviewed.
1. Energy demand reduction and energy efficiency
- Energy conservation Agreement this was a key enabler in meeting the 80% target. Final energy demand from end users must stabilise, and preferably reduce, with the majority of scenarios suggesting a reduction of between 30% and 50% on current levels.
- Behavioural change Many scenarios made strong assumptions about the capacity to bring about the necessary demand reductions. There was also a general presumption that demand would be reduced without a corresponding reduction in energy service delivered. The role of energy efficiency across the board was essential, the range of efficiency assumptions varied with each scenario but the reliance on incremental improvements to deliver the same standard of energy service for less was consistent.
- Demand reduction Divergence and uncertainty around whether levels of demand reduction are actually achievable. Although all scenarios recognised that it was necessary, some models, particularly those with a forecasting approach, concluded that this level of demand reduction was not a feasible outcome, either because there are not suitable demand side technologies to make the reduction, or, because the behavioural element of technology use would lower the performance efficiency of end-use technologies.
2. Power generation and power system control
- Decarbonisation of power Consensus on the need for rapid decarbonisation of power generation
- Electricity demand Divergence on the extent of increase in demand with the range varying from 10% to well above 100%.
- Generation Agreement on the main components of the power system in 2050, with centralised provision from nuclear, wind, fossil (mostly coal) with CCS taking a lead role, but there were variations in proportion of each major technology.
- Other technologies No consensus on the role for other low carbon generation technologies such as tidal, wave, energy from waste, bioenergy, solar photo-voltaic and concentrated solar power. Most studies picked out a small role for a wide range of other technologies but there were no obvious patterns in these conclusions.
- Intermittency Scenarios did not agree on how system control would evolve to resolve intermittency issues. A range of solutions were deployed by the models, from flexible conventional generation, to flexible demand, interconnection to mainland Europe and large scale storage solutions.
- Forecasting studies cited gas as primary source of system flexibility, particularly in the short to medium term (out to 2030), although this was often coupled with failing to achieve the full 80% CO2 reductions by 2050.
- Back casting studies showed more of a role for interconnection and storage (e.g. pumped storage). The involvement of the demand side in treating flexibility was dependent on the electrification of heat and transport and assumptions around behaviour change and end-use technology capabilities (e.g. to enable vehicle to grid interaction).
3. Road transport
- Effciency Efficiency gains in conventional vehicles and hybrids drove the bulk of emissions reductions in road transport up to 2020/2025. Post-2025 there was a diversity of fuels playing a role in both passenger and freight transport. Nevertheless, the table also shows there was a significant role for electric drive-train vehicles with some scenarios seeing electric vehicles dominating after 2025.
- Electrification General shift toward the large-scale electrification of transport (particularly domestic transport) after 2025. A limitation of many of the scenarios studied is that the modelling approaches used are not well adapted for representation or costing of infrastructure developments. So comparison of alternative transport options is limited to end-use technology.
- Technology Assumptions around the efficiency improvements (or lack of them) for electric, biofuel and fuel cell vehicles drove scenarios down various alternative paths.
- Bioenergy This was still quite unclear across the energy system with some scenarios seeing a strong role for biofuels in the post 2025 system. But again, highly dependent on assumptions around availability of biofuels and conflicting demands between modes of transport, from other energy services and from non-energy sectors.
- Infrastructure Assumptions around the feasibility and cost of infrastructure evolution also drove the interplay between biofuel, hydrogen and electric transport futures.
4. Heat supply
- Electrification Across scenarios there ws some diversity in the energy sources used for provision of heat but with a slight shift towards electrification away from gas-based heating. There was a general theme of heat supply being provided by multiple technologies (electric heat pumps, gas domestic-scale CHP, biomethane, district heating), so moving away from a single dominant technology (gas central heating).
- Demand The role of responsive demand (particularly use of low-grade heat as a storage device through heat pumps and domestic heat storage) in providing power system balancing services was a recurring feature of the scenarios. However, there was variation in assumptions regarding responsiveness of end users (caused by both technical and/or behavioural limitations).
- Technologies There was considerable uncertainty around deployment and acceptability of new (or alternative) heating technologies. Many of the solutions suggested would require a change in the way that domestic dwellings receive heat services, others require a completely different approach to installation that may not be compatible with retrofit into existing homes and many are susceptible to less than optimal running efficiencies through user behaviour.
Background
The UK Government has set challenging targets for the reduction of carbon emissions: 34% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. A better understanding of technology RD&D pathways, critical decision points and risks, will inform public and private sector decision makers on innovation policy and funding issues to help meet these targets. The Energy Research Partnership bropught together stakeholders from across the energy sector to develop such a vision.
“Developing a consensus on the technology that a decarbonised society might need in 2050 is essential. The Energy Research Partnership will be carrying out work to focus on key research, development and demonstration milestones.” HMG’s Low Carbon Transition Plan, July 2009
Show more
Aim
The aim of the ERP “Innovation Milestones to 2050” project was to develop a shared understanding of what current analysis tells us about the technology development milestones and critical decision points for the likely key components of the energy system in 2050. Using this, the ERP set out a vision, briadly shared by Government and industry to give a better common understanding of technology pathways, timeframes and risks, and their contribution to the targets.
For ERP, this provides a context for our future work on technology assessments of RD&D challenges, gaps and opportunities. Combined with an oversight of the innovation landscape, this can be used to identify and address gaps in provision and priorities for support.
Outputs
The first phase of the project was a review and meta-analysis of a wide range of public and private energy system scenarios for 2050. The high-level / meta-analysis link above describes the process, gives the conclusions and provides high-level analysis of major UK energy system scenarios.
The report was published in March 2010.
Innovation Funnel
In 2007, the Energy Research Partnership conducted a review of the innovation chain for 12 key energy technology areas. It is technologies in these areas that are expected to transform the UK’s energy landscape, making dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions whilst maintaining secure access to competitive sources of energy.
The supporting agencies are identified for each area giving a clear picture of the sources of public funding that help move technologies from R&D through demonstration to final deployment. Gaps and barriers in the innovation chain are also highlighted and specific recommendations made to overcome these.The ERP is now looking in detail at the development needs in 100+ more specific technologies and assessing each against a set of criteria to help prioritise RDD&D investment.
In bringing this all together the ERP hope to highlight its recommendations to ensure that the UK will have the technologies available to meet the daunting challenge set by climate change.
These are best summarised as:
- Development of a strategic vision for each technology area
- Better co-ordination, with some consolidation, of support along the innovation chain
- R&D to be strengthened and more strongly focussed on market need
- Much stronger joint public/private support for demonstration and early deployment
Next steps
This project was followed up with an in depth analysis of the 12 key technology families and their progress along with innovation pathway. Further details of the project can be found on the Energy Technologies Matrix project page.
